Our New Governor General
I want to pen my support for the next Governor General. I want to tell her that her work is important, and I also want to tell her why. More than that, I want to tell her detractors to take note, because they are prone to simple arguments, and I think they often miss the point when they dismiss the need for a Governor General.
Her role is rooted in the past and future of this nation, and in many ways she is helping to hold these realms together. Let me tell you why that’s a good thing.
I’m not a nostalgic person, but there is a simple fact that is irrevocable for all Canadians. We all share the burden of this nation’s history as much as we share the burden of its future. As new Canadians, or those having lived here for several generations, we are attached to the lived reality of Canada past and Canada future. Take a moment to think about that … the notion of a living history. That is how I am approaching this topic.
Our nation cannot sever ties to the colonial past; rather it is our burden to reform and reshape our colonial dimensions – to make them relevant for the present. This is the process of Canada’s living history. I call it a burden, because it often is, but it is also a unique opportunity; and one I believe is emblematic in the changing faces of the Governor General. Her role should be to remind us that our country is a work in progress – to remind us that traditions, which cease to adapt, will become irrelevant. Does Michaëlle Jean’s appointment live up to these expectations? I would argue yes, but to do so I’ll have to deal with the detractors (against the role of Governor General and of Ms. Jean).
The nay-Sayers say: She’s not elected. She wastes taxpayers’ money. She does nothing useful. She’s been appointed to curry Liberal support. She’s a token appointment.
Let me deal with these comments in stride, and I think I should be able to make my point.
No, she’s not elected. And that’s ok. Appointments provide opportunities that electoral politics do not. Ask yourself: who would fight an election to be Governor General? Not the current appointee that’s for sure. Which strikes me as a unique opportunity for Canada – not a problem. Reforming the appointment of the Governor General to accommodate an electoral scheme may at some point be necessary – remember I said: traditions that cease to adapt become irrelevant – but that’s hardly a reasonable argument for doing away with the Governor General.
She does not waste taxpayers’ money. First of all, the Governor General’s 17 million dollar budget is very modest in comparison to the range of annual government expenditures. Second, this is an investment in promoting Canada and causes for Canadians. It is money well spent because it can be freely attached to projects without a political champion in the party system. Which brings me to my next point.
The Governor General does a lot for Canadians, but the benefits are not the same as those gained from party politics. Her outcomes are not tangible policy outcomes, which has led many to declare her role, and her actions, frivolous or useless. This is a shamefully myopic perspective. There is so much more to the national political landscape than governing. The Governor General is free to act on issues and ideas that are not the favor of electoral (party) politics. Adrienne Clarkson’s trade mission to Northern States in Scandinavia would have never been a strong political proposition – but that’s the point. Does it make it useless? No.
Some have suggested that the appointment process makes the Governor General very much a part of party politics; that her appointment is decided to score political points for the incumbent Prime Minister, and that this makes the successful candidate biased (or presumably an agent of the sponsoring party). Some have even accused that Paul Martin’s recent appointment of a former CBC journalist was, by design, a move to keep the national media ingratiated to the Liberal Party. Or, that by appointing a black, Haitian immigrant, the Prime Minister was actively courting ethnic votes, particularly the Haitian Diaspora of Montreal.
While I can appreciate these efforts to unmask political strategy, and to reread moments in Canadian politics with a partisan lens, let’s not get carried away. These arguments are, at best a singular objection to partisan politics and not the role of the Governor General – I might add they are somewhat naive. (I refuse to waste time here debating patronage, and the appointment system that pervades Canadian politics – yes, pervades – in so many more ways than most are able to acknowledge.) To wage a speculative blow at the significant appointment of someone who does, in fact, personify groups sorely unaccounted for in the House of Commons, is not only naïve, it’s counterintuitive to the reality of Canadian life. Basically, it is to say: “Paul Martin is panhandling for votes, by doing something to empower and inspire a group of Canadians.”
This kind of backwards thinking runs too deep. Recently, articles in the Hill Times called attention to the scarce number of blacks in the House of Commons, Senate, and the Parliamentary Press Gallery. Late last week, when it came time to welcome our new Governor General, the headlines churning forth out of this same Press Gallery declared that Ms. Jean was a political slam-dunk for Paul Martin. They could have said that her appointment was a political slam-dunk for a lot of people. But they didn’t.
It should also be noted that Ms. Jean is part of a mixed race marriage; that she persevered poverty, that she has had a tremendously successful career, and that she is brave enough to have adopted a child from her native Haiti. I suppose Paul Martin will also reap the benefits of these inspiring qualities at the ballot box?
She’s a token appointment – hardly. If you are one of the few out there who is seriously concerned with the Governor General being an appeasement to affirmative action, then you need to give your head a shake. She is not, and never will be, a sufficient replacement for the elected representation of women, blacks, or new Canadians in the House of Commons. She can inspire Canadians, and perhaps remind us that we are evolving too slowly in some respects. As I said, the function of the Governor General is to remind Canadians that our country is a work in progress – and that change is always needed.
In this sense, the Governor General is not an anachronism. Her role is far from obsolete. Although her duties are largely defined in the conventions of parliament (a language that is dead to most Canadians), her relevance is not taken from her official duties to the process of Canadian government. The argument against the need for a Governor General in Canada often misses this point.
Please do something inspiring Ms. Jean, or I may be eating my words.
August 8th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
Because this is the first post of its kind, I want to point this out quickly: this was written by alevo, not by me, as you will see if you look under the title of the post.
August 9th, 2005 at 10:54 am
There’s no doubt that the role of Governor General has changed a great deal since before 1837, when the Governor General actually had power. Our outgoing GG, Adrienne Clarkson, did a good job of raising the profile of the office and actually doing things, efforts that were well-received by some and criticized by others.
The dischord about the GG and the GG’s role seems to once again fall (unsurprisingly) into east-west lines. I read an article in the Calgary Sun that made, in addition to the criticisms you’ve covered, the point that this appointment was yet another snub of the West.
The Calgary Sun is trash, but truth be told, I can kind of see where they’re coming from. As you imply when you say “[t]hese arguments are, at best a singular objection to partisan politics”, it’s impossible to divorce the political process from any appointment. We all know that the political implications of Jean’s appointment were at the very least considered by Martin and his team. And it’s also been pointed out that from a political perspective, he did well.
The problem with criticizing her appointment for that reason is that it’s a poor argument. First, any party will make the same calculations. I wonder if those in the West including the Calgary Sun would criticize a politically advantageous appointment by Harper if he were in power. Second, had Martin chosen someone from the West, he would be just as vulnerable to the same criticism, except that instead of being criticized for pandering to Quebecers, he’d be criticized for pandering to Albertans, British Columbians, etc. If anything, the political calculus involved would be even more obvious. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
The problem with criticizing the role of Governor General because the appointment process can (or is) partisan is succinctly dealt with in your post. You make some good points regarding what would happen were it an elected position – who would run? What would that do for the position and how we feel about it? Could it survive a bout of political mud-slinging, followed by the election of a bland politician with an uncertain mandate who is already tarnished by the inevitable dirt of the political process?
I agree that there is “more to the national political landscape than governing”. I’m also optimistic about what Jean can do for the country and look forward to seeing how she performs.
August 9th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Agreed. The Calgary Sun is trash. I read that article today as well. Awful.
There is today, another commentary piece in the Globe, which talks about the politicization of the GG’s role. Greg Barnes writes about Ireland’s experience, and of the fact that an elected GG is one more active in homeland “governing;” one with more credibilty, and ultimately more purpose. However, I question whether or not that is desirable in Canada.
As the Sun writer roughly points out, it has been a long road to disengage colonial structures from the political process in Canada, and our citizens largely begrudge any links to the British monarchy. I think we have moved too far away from accepting the GG back in the House of Commons. So she can no longer act as a Head of State, or in the case of Ireland, de facto President. It is almost laughable to think that the current Canadian GG could exercise political will in the House of Commons. (Read the two historical examples examples form the Calgary Sun article and tell me otherwise)
I would like to see a number of the conventional elements of the GG’s role in Parliament done away with – and they will be in time. However, until that happens we may have to hear a good many complaints about who gets appointed, and what the appointment represents.
The cleverest proposal I have heard suggested was that the GG be elected by a vote taken from members of the Order of Canada. To further this, the slate of candidates might even come from the same group. Not a bad start.
I guess the point I wanted to make in the post was that it is better to work with the institution and attempt to propose constructive changes to it, than it is to wage lazy criticisms sprinkled with divisive remarks.
August 10th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Care to respond to more recent criticisms revolving around her turning out to be a French citizen in addition to being a Canadian? She’s French through marriage, but I assume she must have at least accepted French citizenship, if not pursued it. Does that make her less of a good candidate for the position?
August 10th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
Why would it? Is National purity even a viable consideration for her worth to be a role model, or to inspire Canadians? Wayne Gretzky’s a naturalized American.
In this day and age, we should be wary of anyone who is willing to suggest that someone else is less a citizen than themself.